
تفصیل
In this episode, Courtney Cox, Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law, discusses her new article "Super-Dicta," which is published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Cox begins by explaining what she means by "super-dicta," then reflects on what the concept can tell us about the judging process and jurisprudence more generally. Here is the abstract:A weird thing happens when a conscientious, rational judge lacks certainty and has the humility to know it: she will often decide cases for reasons that differ from the reasons in her opinions. To illustrate, suppose she thinks it’s 50/50 whether Defendant’s copying infringed or was fair use. She could rationally flip a coin. But if she does, and she finds for Defendant, it will not be because of fair use. Rather, it will be because she thought it was 50/50 whether the copying was fair use—and the coin landed tails.Coin-flip cases are rare, but uncertainty is not. There are more sophisticated tools for responding rationally when the judge’s doubts about what she ought to do are not in complete equipoise. And so, the point remains: when a judge is uncertain about what she ought to do and is rational in pursuit of that aim, the actual reason for her decision and the ratio decidendi will diverge. And unlike much of the literature arguing we cannot take opinions at face value, the phenomenon I describe arises from anti-cynical premises: a judge who aims at what is right.I call the judge’s actual reasoning “Super-Dicta.” Super-Dicta is so-called because it is super important: it is directly necessary to the decision—and not just causally, but as part of a judge’s rationale. But even though it is the decisive reasoning, it would appear to have the status of dicta: whether expressed, or not, Super-Dicta is not purely objective, limited to law or facts. It encompasses the judge’s subjective reasoning based on her uncertainty. That is, it is reasoning that resolves a case that is hard for the judge, not just hard.Should Super-Dicta appear in a
More By CC0/Public Domain...
- 1
Sam Williams on the Jokerfication of Law
CC0/Public Domain... · 3,713 پلے · 58:56
- 2
Bearer-Friend & Polcz on Taxing AI
CC0/Public Domain... · 7,135 پلے · 39:53
- 3
Nikola Datzov on AI Judges
CC0/Public Domain... · 7,547 پلے · 46:04
- 4
Valentin Jeutner on Conceptual Legal Writing
CC0/Public Domain... · 3,061 پلے · 43:34
- 5
Urice & Frankel on Art Law
CC0/Public Domain... · 3,782 پلے · 36:28
- 6
Stephen Cicirelli on Philosophy, Literature, and Plagiarism
CC0/Public Domain... · 3,340 پلے · 30:31
- 7
Bill Childs on Amusement Park Law
CC0/Public Domain... · 4,091 پلے · 33:39
- 8
Mark Blankenship on the "Aesthetic Nondiscrimination" Doctrine
CC0/Public Domain... · 6,015 پلے · 41:41
- 9
Jacob Schriner-Briggs on First Amendment Traditionalism
CC0/Public Domain... · 7,253 پلے · 38:53
- 10
Davies & Ellis on Brakhage & Sartre
CC0/Public Domain... · 8,767 پلے · 47:26
آپ کو یہ بھی پسند آ سکتے ہیں
- 1
البمM!DNIGHT
M!DNIGHT · 5,461 پلے
- 2
البمYELLOW (bass, beats & bleeps)
Erikk McKenzie · 6,362 پلے
- 3
البمTrading Up
331,709 پلے
- 4
البمKnow Radio
Know · 8,356 پلے
- 5
البمLaurence Ipsum
Laurence Ipsum · 4,550 پلے
- 6
البمDavid James Radio
Hunter Brothers · 4,940 پلے
- 7
البمAnu
Anu · 2,981 پلے
- 8
البمLush
Lush · 5,516 پلے
- 9
البمAryanne
Aryanne · 10,016 پلے
- 10
البمLul Kane
Lul Kane · 1,761 پلے
- 11
البمErin Super
Erin Super · 10,037 پلے
- 12
البمThe Rose
Nodo · 5,436 پلے